Isn't James stating that they have sole hunting and fishing rights on the land they were granted under ANCSA?

I think you're both agreeing, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Ironically, the federal (rural resident) subsistence preference only applies on FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND. It DOES NOT apply on private land... even land owned by Native corporations!

State laws apply on Native land. Granted, Natives, like any other private land owner, can prevent trespass access, but when hunting/trapping on Native land, they must abide by STATE game laws and regulations.

I can tell you from my time on the Alaska Board of Game, that most people in the villages do not understand this important legal point.

Pete

Pete, Thanks for some piece of clarification on this. I can say that after having lived close to the Wind River RES in Wyoming that natives not only don't understand state game laws that apply to them, they pretty much ignore them when they so choose, much to the chagrin of WG&F, but it's like Twain's novel about kicking the tar baby.

Source: University of Washington School of Law.

"The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was passed in 1971 to extinguish aboriginal rights of Alaska Natives and provide compensation for those rights extinguished. Instead of vesting assets (land and money) in tribal governments, Congress required the formation of Alaska Native corporations to receive and hold these assets. A major flaw in the settlement was the failure to provide statutory protections for the aboriginal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights extinguished by ANCSA. Moreover, while ANCSA did not directly address Alaska Native tribal status or jurisdiction, the Supreme Court interpreted the Act to terminate the Indian country status of ANCSA land. Subsequently, Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) was adopted in 1980 to provide a subsistence priority for rural Alaska residents, but the approach contemplated in Title VIII failed due to the State of Alaska’s unwillingness to participate.( Actually it was McDowell decision that made it illegal for the State to discriminate this way.) my edit.

On the self-government front, state and federal courts have joined the federal Executive Branch and Congress in recognizing that Alaska Native tribes have the same legal status as other federally recognized tribes in the lower forty-eight states. The Obama Administration recently changed its regulations to allow land to be taken in trust for Alaska Native tribes, and thus be considered Indian country subject to tribal jurisdiction, and generally precluding most state authority."

I'll clarify one other misconception ( if I am wrong please fix my understanding ) . The State of Alaska has designated certain areas ( GMU's generally ) as subsistence areas. Plenty of people who live in non-subsistence areas subsistence hunt, trap and fish in subsistence areas under State regulations.

A person who owns shares of Alaska Airlines stock does not have the right to enter Alaska Airlines property. Neither does a person who owns stock in a native corporation have rights to enter corporation land. Enforcement of trespass violations is spotty and mostly not done.
AFN resolution wants to change rural preferences based on residency to native preferences based on race.
It will be a cold day In you know where when a native corporation board of directors votes to put their money making land back under government oversight so they can possibly have hunting and fishing rights exclusively.

I believe such a regulation would require an amendment to the state’s constitution.

The battle will continue until we come up with a solution that can rectify the problem.